Specific Performance Under Section 10: Why It Is No Longer a Matter of Court's Discretion

Specific performance is one of the most tested topics in civil law papers for judiciary exams, and Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 sits right at its centre. A major shift happened in 2018 when Parliament amended this section, turning specific performance from a discretionary remedy into something much closer to a right. This blog explains what specific performance means, how Section 10 changed, and what recent case law tells us about how it is applied today.

What Is Specific Performance

Specific performance is an equitable remedy where a court directs a party to a contract to actually carry out their promise, rather than simply paying monetary compensation for failing to do so. It is most commonly seen in contracts relating to immovable property, since land and buildings are considered unique, meaning money alone often cannot fairly compensate the other party for the loss of a specific piece of property.

The remedy is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 10 is the key provision that tells us when a court can enforce specific performance of a contract.

Section 10 Before and After the 2018 Amendment

Before the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 10 gave courts wide discretion. Specific performance was only enforceable when compensation in money would not provide adequate relief, or when there was no clear standard for calculating the actual damage caused by non-performance. Even where these conditions were met, granting specific performance remained within the court's discretion, and courts often preferred to award damages as the general rule, treating specific performance as an exception.

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, which received presidential assent on 1 August 2018 and came into force on 1 October 2018, completely substituted Section 10. The amended provision now states that specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court, subject only to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14, and Section 16. The word may was effectively replaced with an obligation to enforce, removing the earlier broad judicial discretion.

This is a fundamental shift. Specific performance is no longer treated as an exceptional remedy available only when damages are inadequate. Instead, it has become the default, statutory remedy for breach of contract, available as of right once the conditions in the Act are satisfied, subject to specific exceptions listed elsewhere in the Act.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lays down the legal framework for inheritance and succession among Hindus. For Judiciary Exam aspirants, understanding its key provisions, classes of heirs, and landmark judicial interpretations is essential for building a strong foundation in Personal Laws and tackling both prelims and mains questions with confidence. 

Other Important Related Changes in 2018

•      Section 14, which lists contracts that cannot be specifically enforced, was also revised, narrowing the list of situations where courts can refuse specific performance.

•      Section 20 was substituted to introduce the concept of substituted performance, allowing an aggrieved party, where the contract is broken, to get the contract performed through a third party or through their own agency, and then recover the costs from the party who broke the contract, after giving 30 days written notice.

•      A new Section 20A was introduced for infrastructure project contracts, restricting the grant of injunctions in a way that could interrupt or stop public works.

•      Section 14A was added to allow courts to engage technical experts to assist in specific performance suits involving specialised or technical contracts.

The Role of Section 16: Readiness and Willingness

Even though specific performance is now largely a matter of statutory right rather than discretion, Section 10 makes this right subject to Section 16 of the Act. Section 16(c) requires the plaintiff to both plead and prove that they have always been ready and willing to perform their own part of the contract. This is a condition precedent, meaning a plaintiff who cannot establish continuous readiness and willingness cannot succeed in a specific performance suit, no matter how strong their case otherwise is.

This principle was reaffirmed recently by the Supreme Court in A. Shahul Hameed v. N. Malligarjuna and Others (2026 INSC 573), decided on 27 May 2026. In that case, the Court restored a decree for specific performance after finding that the lower courts had wrongly concluded the plaintiff lacked readiness and willingness merely because a legal notice was issued about four months after the stipulated period for performance had expired. The Supreme Court clarified that readiness and willingness must be assessed from the totality of facts and circumstances, including the conduct of the plaintiff both before and after filing the suit, and that a delay in issuing a legal notice, standing alone, does not automatically defeat a claim for specific performance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is specific performance?

A: Specific performance is an equitable remedy where a court directs a party to actually carry out their contractual promise, rather than merely paying monetary compensation for breach.

Q: How did the 2018 Amendment change Section 10?

A: It removed the court's earlier broad discretion, making specific performance a mandatory remedy, subject only to the conditions in Section 11(2), Section 14 and Section 16 of the Act.

Q: When did the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 come into force?

A: It came into force on 1 October 2018, after receiving presidential assent on 1 August 2018.

Q: What is substituted performance under Section 20?

A: It allows an aggrieved party, after giving 30 days written notice, to have the contract performed through a third party or their own agency, and then recover the costs from the party who broke the contract.

Q: Why is Section 16(c) important even after the 2018 Amendment?

A: Section 16(c) requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, which remains a condition precedent for a decree of specific performance.

Q: What did the Supreme Court hold in A. Shahul Hameed v. N. Malligarjuna?

A: The Court held that readiness and willingness must be assessed from the totality of facts and conduct, and that a delay in issuing a legal notice alone does not defeat a claim for specific performance.

Q: Is specific performance available for all types of contracts?

A: No. Section 14 of the Act lists certain contracts that cannot be specifically enforced, such as those involving personal skill or continuous supervision.

Q: Why is this topic important for judiciary exams?

A: It combines statutory interpretation of a heavily amended provision with recent Supreme Court case law, making it valuable for Prelims, Mains and Interview across civil law papers.

Conclusion

The 2018 Amendment to Section 10 marks one of the most significant shifts in Indian contract remedy law in recent decades, converting specific performance from an exceptional relief into the default remedy for breach of contract. At the same time, safeguards like Section 16(c) readiness and willingness continue to ensure that this powerful remedy is not misused.

Success in the Judicial Services Examination begins with Judiciary Online Coaching that focuses on conceptual clarity, regular revision, and exam-oriented practice.